CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?

To: kzerohb@gmail.com, CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?
From: jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: jpescatore@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:03:01 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hans, looks like reading the part .105 definition of control operator, If I 
operate W4AAW remotely and Mike W4AAW designates me as control  op, I'm then 
both the station operator and the control op, so I can enter SO class. If he 
doesn't designate me as such, he is the control op - then it would have to be 
multi-op per new ARRL rule definition.  With the new wording, hard to figure 
out the spirit or the intent.


73 John K3TN



-----Original Message-----
From: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>
To: jpescatore <jpescatore@aol.com>; CQ-Contest <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 10:34 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?


John,

I think the key word is “acts”.  

If the remote operator completely controls the station then the on-site 
presence of another (non-participating) licensee at the station isn’t germane.

However, if the on-site person acts as a participant in the operation (adjusts 
equipment, switches antennas, etc) then it would (from my view) be a multiple 
operator effort.

If the mere presence of another licensee on-site makes you multi-op, then I’ll 
have to send K0CKB (my XYL) to a hotel during every contest that I want to 
single-op.

73, de Hans, K0HB
“Just a Boy and his Radio”™

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:06 jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest 
<cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:

Bart - the wording of the rule change for remote operations ("If another 
operator acts as the on-site control operator of the remote station you are 
using, the entry must be submitted in a multioperator category") implies that 
there is no such thing as a single-op remote entry.


How does the control-op issue compare to a physical guest op, where the station 
owner is still physically present during the contest? Should such guest 
operations be considered multi-op as well? If the issue is that the local 
control op *might* be required to take some action, the same is true of the 
station owner with a physically present guest op.


73 John K3TN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


-- 

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>